Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ranveer Singh Versus N.C.T. Of Delhi

Acquittal of the petitioner in the complaint case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act - default for want of prosecution - Held that:- The acquittal of the petitioner accused in the complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act was a result of nonappearance of the plaintiff and by resort to Section 256 of the Code. There was no determination, one way or another, of any issue of fact or law by the learned Magistrate, and there was no trial by the learned Magistrate in the said complaint case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gainst the accused being tried on the same facts for any other offence would not apply to this fact situation. The relevant words “nor on the same facts … … …” clearly show that for latter part of Section 300(1) to apply, the “same facts” should have been tried and determined in the earlier trial conducted for any other offence. - Though the accused may have been technically “acquitted” in respect of one of such complaints, there would be no determination of any issue of fact, or law, since .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e offence”. Since the “trial” in the complaint case under section 138 of the NI Act had not taken place, there would be no question of the petitioner accused being “tried again”. - In the present case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, was dealing with the complaint of the complainant u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Merely because in the said complaint, the facts which constitute offences u/s 406/420 IPC may have been laid out, it does not follow that the Magistrate was oblige .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, N.K. Khanna, Amitabh Nihar and Rakesh Bhati, Advocates Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with Mr. Peeyush Bhatia, Adv for State with SI Sanjeev Kumar, PS Vivek Vihar VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the quashing of FIR 616/2015 dated 09.07.2015 registered u/s 420/406/34 IPC at PS Vivek Vihar. The premise on which the said prayer is made is that on the same facts, respondent no.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in question has been registered, by force of section 300 Cr PC the petitioner cannot be tried again in the aforesaid police case FIR registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 616/2015. 2. Section 300(1) Cr PC is relevant for the present purpose and the same reads as follows: 300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. 1. A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in respect of the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, he cannot be charged and tried for the offence u/s 420/406/34 IPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorntla Venkateswara Rao & Anr., rendered by a bench of two learned Judges of the Supreme Court on 01.02.2011 in Crl A No.1160/2006. Since the said judgment is contained in a short order, I consider it app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) of Cr.P.C.. Article 20(2) states: no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. On the other hand, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. States: 300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same office__ (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts. In the present case, although the offences are different but the facts are the same. Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies. Consequently, the prosecution under Section 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. The Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside . 4. Mr. Mahajan has, however, opposed the petition by submitting that the expression s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7 SCC 621. Mr. Mahajan points out that in this case, the Supreme Court by a detailed decision, after reference to numerous earlier decisions including those of the Constitution Bench, held that -both for purposes of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which incorporates the doctrine of autrefois acquit i.e. the doctrine against double jeopardy, and for the purpose of section 300 Cr PC, section 71 IPC, and section 26 of the General Clauses Act, it is the ingredients of the offences in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecision would have to be considered as per incuriam in the light of the decision in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2014 (2) JCC 1264 and in particular para 15 thereof, wherein the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that: It is often encountered in High Courts that two or more mutually irreconcilable decisions of the Supreme Court are cited at the Bar. We think that the inviolable recourse is to apply the earliest view as the succeeding ones would fall in the category of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1 SCC (Civ) 547] is concerned. It has been held therein that once the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been recorded, the question of trying the same person under Section 420 IPC or any other provisions of IPC or any other statute is not permissible being hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300(1) CrPC . 7. Upon the aforesaid being pointed out, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in Sangeetaben (supra), the Supreme Court has wrong .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Supreme Court in Sangeetaben (supra), and to examine whether Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) has been considered in the correct perspective, or not. Since the earlier decision in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) has been expressly considered in the subsequent decision in Sangeetaben (supra), there is no question of invoking the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna (supra). The decision in Sangeetaben (supra), therefore, cannot be said to be per incurium. 9. I now .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947. The plea of double jeopardy was raised by the accused seeking protection under Article 20(2) of Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held that the said plea of double jeopardy is based on the ancient maxim nemo debet bis punire pro uno delicto, that is to say, that no one ought to be punished twice for one offence. The plea of autrefois convict or autrefois acquit avers that the person has been previously convicted or acquitted on a charge for the sam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The Supreme Court also referred to the decision in Om Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 458, and State of M.P. v. Veereshwar Rao Agnihotri, AIR 1957 SC 592, wherein it had been held that the prosecution and conviction or acquittal u/s 409 IPC does not debar trial of the accused on a charge under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, because the two offences are not identical in sense, import and content. The Supreme Court also relied on Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendant, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rent offence from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy because the conspiracy precedes the commission of the crime and is complete before the crime is attempted or completed, equally the crime attempted or completed does not require the element of conspiracy as one of its ingredients. They are, therefore, quite separate offences. 11. The Supreme Court then proceeded to consider the decision in State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte, AIR 1961 SC 578. In this case, while dealing with the issue of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enefit of the ban cannot be invoked. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse and compare not the allegations in the two complaints but the ingredients of the two offences and see whether their identity is made out. … *** 16. The next point to be considered is as regards the scope of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act. Though Section 26 in its opening words refers to the act or omission constituting an offence under two or more enactments , the emphasis is not on the facts alleged in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t held: 11. … The previous case in which this accused was convicted was in regard to a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the funds of the Jupiter and that case was finally disposed of by this Court in Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay [AIR 1957 SC 747 : 1957 Cri LJ 1325] . Therein it was found that Caveeshar was a party to the conspiracy and also a party to the fraudulent transactions entered into by the Jupiter in his favour. The present case relates to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cy. The question is whether that in itself would be sufficient to make the two conspiracies the one and the same offence. … 12. … The two conspiracies are distinct offences. It cannot even be said that some of the ingredients of both the conspiracies are the same. The facts constituting the Jupiter conspiracy are not the ingredients of the offence of the Empire conspiracy, but only afford a motive for the latter offence. Motive is not an ingredient of an offence. The proof of motiv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

SC 771, the Supreme Court culled out the important rules which emerge from section 403 Cr PC, 1898, which is para materia with section 300 of the present Code. The following rules were noted in the said decision: (1) An order of conviction or acquittal in respect of any offence constituted by any act against or in favour of a person does not prohibit a trial for any other offence constituted by the same act which he may have committed, if the court trying the first offence was incompetent to tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efrom constituted a different offence, he may again be tried for that different offence arising out of the consequences, if the consequences had not happened or were not known to the court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted. (4) A person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and has been either convicted or acquitted shall not be tried for the same offence or for any other offence arising out of the same facts, for which a different charge f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he FIR in question. Not having been tried for the same, the petitioner cannot be now tried for the said offence. This submission shall be dealt with a little later. Before considering the same, I may first proceed to conclude my dealing with Sangeetaben(supra). 15. There are several other decisions taken note of by the Supreme Court in Sangeetaben (supra). However, it is not necessary to refer to each one of them for the present purpose. It is the submission of the petitioner that the other case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eme Court observed in para 30 as follows: 30. In State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 152 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 451 : AIR 2003 SC 791] this Court held that as the offence of glorification of Sati under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987, is different from the offence of violation of prohibitory order issued under Section 6 thereof, the doctrine of double jeopardy was not attracted for the reason that even if the prohibitory order is promulgated, a subsequent criminal act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ier trial was held and the subsequent trial was sought to be undertaken in respect of a different offence.. 18. I may now proceed to cull out the conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court in para 33, which reads as follows: 33. In view of the above, the law is well settled that in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution i.e. doctrine of autrefois acquit or Section 300 CrPC or Section 71 IPC or Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the ingredients of the offences in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

charge .(emphasis supplied). 19. Pertinently, in Sangeetaben (supra), the issue of double jeopardy was raised before the Supreme Court in the context of a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act being preferred and a prosecution being launched u/s 406/ 420 IPC on the same facts. In that respect, the Supreme Court observed: 37. Admittedly, the appellant had been tried earlier for the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act and the case is sub judice before the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s a legal presumption that the cheque had been issued for discharging the antecedent liability and that presumption can be rebutted only by the person who draws the cheque. Such a requirement is not there in the offences under IPC. In the case under the NI Act, if a fine is imposed, it is to be adjusted to meet the legally enforceable liability. There cannot be such a requirement in the offences under IPC. The case under the NI Act can only be initiated by filing a complaint. However, in a case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itioner was tried by the Judicial Magistrate who acquitted him by resort to Section 256 Cr.P.C.? The Supreme Court in Sangeetaben(supra) considered the decision of another Constitution Bench in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 375, wherein the scope of the doctrine of double jeopardy enshrined under Article 20(2) of Constitution of India was considered. In that decision, the Constitution Bench held that there must have been both- prosecution and punishment in respect of the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ting the petitioner. 22. Though the petitioner stands technically acquitted by application of Section 256 CrPC, his acquittal is not after a trial. Thus, in my view, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a person who has once been tried by a Court of Competent jurisdiction … … … . All that can be said is that he is a person who has been acquitted. Acquittal may result with, or without, a trial - like in the present case. 23. Though in a different context, the expression t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eference to the procedure contained in Section 494 of the Cr PC . Their Lordships observed. The words tried and trial appear to have no fixed or universal meaning. No doubt, in quite a number of sections in the Code to which our attention has been drawn the words tried and trial have been used in the sense of reference to a stage after the inquiry. That meaning attaches to the words in those sections having regard to the context in which they are used. There is no reason why where these words ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Trial is the formal examination of the matter in issue in a case before a competent tribunal for the purpose of determining such issue: the mode of determining a question of fact in a Court of law: (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Volume II, Page 2439). 12. Trial 1. Law. The examination and determination of a cause by a Judicial Tribunal; determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused person by a Court . (The Oxford English Dictionary, 1933 Edition, Volume XI. Page 334). .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

trial within Attendance of Witnesses Act, 1954, (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Volume 4, Page 3092). 15. These words have been considered in some judicial decisions. I have already noticed the Supreme Court decision above where for the purposes of Section 494 of the Cr PC in the words tried and trial enquiry was held to be included by the Supreme Court. In Sajjansingh v. Bhogilal, AIR 1958 Raj 307, this Court has observed: Broadly speaking, however, a trial is the examination by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f that term when the charge is read and explained to the accused and he is asked whether he is guilty or claims to be tried . 17. Broomfield J. in Dagdu Govindset v. Punja Vedu, AIR 1937 Bom 55, observed. But according to my experience of the administration of Criminal justice in this Presidency, which is not inconsiderable, the Courts have always accepted the definition of trial which has been given in (1898) 25 Cal 863, that is to say, trial has always been understood to mean the proceeding wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Wallersteiner (supra), Lord Denning held as follows: I think that that note may be putting too narrow a construction on the word tried. It seems to me that, after all the evidence and arguments which were heard in this case, it could well be said that these were proceedings tried in a court of record. Similarly with proceedings under R.S.C., Ord. 14. But it is unnecessary to go into this for this simple reason: we did not order interest to be paid under the Act of 1934, but under the equitable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as decided that there is no defence. 27. The discussion in Gardner Steel Ltd. (supra) had arisen in relation to the plaintiff s claim for interest in a summary proceeding. To be able to claim interest, it was essential that the proceeding should have been tried in a Court of record, as required by Section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934. The Court of Appeal held the plaintiff entitled to interest on a conclusion that even though the proceedings were summary in nature, a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the proceedings which commences when the case is called on with the Magistrate on the Bench; the accused in the dock, and; the representatives of the prosecution and defence - if the accused be defended, present in Court for the hearing of the case. Lastly and most importantly, the words trial and tried have no fixed or universal meaning. These are words which must be considered with regard to the particular context in which they are used and with regard to the scheme and purpose of the provisi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned Magistrate who had acquitted the accused. The result of such acquittal, by force of Section 300(1), would be that while such … … … acquittal remains in force , the petitioner accused shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, namely the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act in relation to the dishonour of the cheque(s) which formed the basis of the complaint. In my view, the further prohibition against the accused being tried on the same facts for any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urt has time and again explained the principle of issue estoppel in a criminal trial observing that where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on an earlier occasion and a finding has been recorded in favour of the accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence, but as precluding the acceptance/reception of evidence to disturb the finding of f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

previous trial on a factual issue. (Vide Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 415 : 1956 Cri LJ 805] , Manipur Admn. v. Thokchom Bira Singh [AIR 1965 SC 87 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 120] , Workmen v. Gujarat Electricity Board [(1969) 1 SCC 266 : AIR 1970 SC 87] and Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar [(2005) 1 SCC 787 : AIR 2005 SC 626] . (emphasis supplied). 30. I may, at this stage, test the aforesaid proposition by reference to a realistic situation. Let us assume that in relation to the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by resort to Section 256 Cr.P.C., could it be said that since the other complaints- in respect of the other dishonoured cheques were issued in relation to the same transaction, i.e. on the same facts , they would also be liable to be dismissed by resort to Section 300(1) Cr.P.C.? In my view, the answer is an obvious NO . This is simply for the reason that though the accused may have been technically acquitted in respect of one of such complaints, there would be no determination of any issue o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntly for a difference offence . Since the trial in the complaint case under section 138 of the NI Act had not taken place, there would be no question of the petitioner accused being tried again . 31. Mr. Mahajan has also pointed out another important aspect of the matter. He submits- and in my view rightly so, that the words used in section 300 Cr PC on the same facts for any other offence ... ... have to be read and understood in the context of the remaining part of the same sentence. When read .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences. (2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub- section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. 32. Section 221 Cr PC contemplates a situation where a single act, or a series of acts raises a doubt as to whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

convicted of the offence, which he is shown to have committed, though not charged with it. In the present case, it is not even the submission of the petitioner that Section 221 CrPc was involved or applicable. 33. In the present case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, was dealing with the complaint of the complainant u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Merely because in the said complaint, the facts which constitute offences u/s 406/420 IPC may have been laid out, it does not follow t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version